Monster Manual: How Much Cut?

[HeinorNY]

Well, you said it yourself: You just need a basic set of 'normal' critters, otherwise it becomes pretty difficult to present a believable world.

BUt we don't need normal animals occuping space in the MM so they can exist in the gameworld. Of course there will be cats, dogs, horses, bears, wolves, eagles running and flying around but do we really need stats for them? How many times a was a cat so important to your game you needed to roll his balance check? That's what I mean.

 

[TerraDave]

They are saying each monster gets at least a full page. But since stat blocks are shorter, this allows more variety for each...(a variety of orcs have been mentioned) I think we are supposed to see more "monsters" (including variants) overall.

Whats not there: brass and bronze dragons (but Iron and Admantite are), frost giants, marids...probably a lot of things. But remember: this is I of many.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Try to be positive, Joe.

Don't look on it as losing a frost giant, but as gaining a legion devil.

 

[jaer]

I sincerely hope they go for the "core" monsters and cut the fat. MM1 is full of things you're not likely to need stats for, really. As my MM1 is hiding, I'll use the SRD for examples (which means I may name some not really in the MM1 so shhh):

Should go (can come back in later MMs or stay away):

-SNIP!!-

Mostly, I agree with your list. I'd still keep:


Azer
Dire Animals (most)
Kraken
Mohrg
Winter Wolf

Some of the others were cool and I liked them, but these I'd like to keep. Winter Wolves, while not always useful, do add to any winter-time or artic based campaign, and this is a typical theme. Mohrg was just a decent mid-ranged undead, one that didn't sap levels or have a death effect (both of which I used rarely already). And the kraken just makes for a decent high level villian monster around which adventures and even campaigns can be built. I think there needs to be a certain amount of these in the MM, and not all of them should be unique beings (like Tiamet and Orcus).

NEED to keep

Animals (most)
Vermin (most)
Swarms (some)

Agreed. And if they had an animals appendix with a page on "here's how to make these dire animals," that would be enough for me. (Dire) animals as monster's pets/gaurds is just too typical and necessary to not have (dire) animals in the book.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

Chuul and Formians rock. They definitely need to stay! Many of the others are fat, I agree.

I'd also echo the comment that the single biggest area of fat is the low-level humanoids. How many different types do we really need. Certainly not the dozens we have today!!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Formians are definitely in.

Actuall there was a dragon in first PHB 3.0

Animals should also stay, and there have to be rules to make them giant and dire. And dire animals should be of a reasonable size... in 3.5 some of them were a little bit big in my opinion...

actually, there should just be rules to easily increase size and monster level so that you can scale them as fit (with a system that is very easy to use)

 

[Benimoto]

Well I think most of the dire animals were in the Monster Manual as animal companions for the druid. Still, I used a fair amount of them, particularly at lower levels.

The one big hint that we have got is that either all or almost all of the monsters in the recent Desert of Desolation set of D&D Miniatures are going to be in the 4th edition Monster Manual.

You can check out the gallery here: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mg/dod

One thing to notice is there are 2 dire animals, but given funny MTG-like names: Vicejaw Crocodile and Thundertusk Boar. There's also one dinosaur, also given a funny name. There are two new swarms, one lycanthrope, one regular animal, and one of the metallic dragons.

There's also some new-ish, non-classic monsters, like the Blade Spider, Rage Drake and Astral Stalker.

I agree that the 3rd edition monster manual had some rarely-used stinkers in it, mostly on Ruin Explorer's list. Still, I think they should experiment a little in the 4th ed Monster Manual 1. I want to see the classics, sure, but I'd like to see at least 5-10% new or otherwise experimental monsters.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

BUt we don't need normal animals occuping space in the MM so they can exist in the gameworld. Of course there will be cats, dogs, horses, bears, wolves, eagles running and flying around but do we really need stats for them? How many times a was a cat so important to your game you needed to roll his balance check? That's what I mean.

As much as I find it boring that they were in the MM, horses are likely to be ridden by PCs, bears, eagles, wolves and dogs are likely to be animal companions or summoning fodder (usually with templates too), and cats are likely to be familiars even though I never liked having a familiar as a wizard.

 

[Cam Banks]

I'm going to be sad if there's no dragonnes or girallons. I put both in my upcoming Dragonlance novel.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Derren]

I really really want runnable out-of-the-box dragon stats. No more 'build your own dragon' toolkits, please. My favourite approach to dragons was BECMI D&D with its Small, Large and Huge variations for each type, properly statted up.

Then you are lucky because thats what I heard is what they will be doing.

Considering how skills work in 4E and that dragons will loose spellcasting there wouldn't be much to customize anyway.